when did the orthodox church(s) add 3 Maccabees?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jen_fla
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hesychios said:
Actually, that response was perfectly sensible.

Publisher is right. The early church just used the Septuagint library that they had available to them as diaspora Jews.

The big conflicts in the early church were over what constituted New testament Scripture. Not surprisingly, that was a second and third century problem, since the first century was taken up in the writing of them!

It was not until much later that scholars (like Jerome) began to question the deutero or “second” -canon in the Septuagint, because they were aware through their own studies the Jews were not at that time using it.

Even Roman Catholic apologetics make clear that the Jewish Pharisaical school after the First Revolt decided against these books because of their lack of antiquity and the tendency to validate and support Christian theological positions. The decision is presumed to have been made at Yavne some time in the first century. It’s possible, but not proven. In any case the Jewish Rabbinical schools stopped using the Septuagint and introduced a curse upon the converts to Christianity in approximately the same era.

So the question might as well be “Why and when did the Roman Catholic church drop 3 & 4 Maccabees from the deutero-canon?” It is as valid a question as "why and when did the Orthodox add them?"

For myself, I don’t think it is much of an issue either way. But it is worth noting that the Orthodox are naturally more conservative than the western church in almost every way. Not surprising then, that some Orthodox synods would keep books that others find less important.
Click to expand...
yes, i agree. i think a timeline would help, because it is easy for a Catholic to assume that the orthodox Church might have decided to keep these books some several hundred years after the Catholic Church had decided to give them the boot.

i have to run, but when i get back i will start on a crude timeline with what little i know in the vast world of history.
 
Publisher said:
Friend Bill,

Did you read the previous post by Friend Hesychios as well as my post just prior to it? Per our Orthodox friends…Catholics also “omit” books from the bible…don’t take offense where none was intended…I dare say my Bible and the Bible that most of those in my Meeting uses has more books in it than your Catholic Bible does…who removed what?🙂

Peace to you.
Click to expand...
NO, I just read what you said that Cathloics add
 
The reason that the Catholic Church has less books in the Bibles is because they are following what was agreed to at the East and West ecumenical councils. No more no less, but to be fare their has never been in the history of the united church that all the churches had the same canon even in union.
 
Chellow said:
The reason that the Catholic Church has less books in the Bibles is because they are following what was agreed to at the East and West ecumenical councils. No more no less, but to be fare their has never been in the history of the united church that all the churches had the same canon even in union.
Click to expand...
can you please give some dates to help me out?

in 382 Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible and it did not include 3 or 4 maccabees. i also read somewhere that the Jews did not accept 4 maccabees even at the time of the incarnation.

i guess back to my original question. if the Catholic Church had a list which is identical to what we use today at 382 AD when did the Orthodox Church decide to include 3 mac. could it be that they have it for viewing “for the wise”, but do not consider it canonical either?

“…the Greek term “apocrypha” was kept to describe both the Septuagint books rejected by the Church and all other non-Septuagint ancient texts. “Apocrypha” means “hidden,” shorthand for “these books are to be hidden from all but the wise,” since the books have tended to be misunderstood by those not well-formed in the mysteries of faith.”

taken from here: catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea2.asp

thanks, nick!
 
I think it would be fair to say that both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, not being practitioners of sola scriptura, are less likely to obsess over the biblical canon than Protestants are.
 
The_Iambic_Pen said:
I think it would be fair to say that both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, not being practitioners of sola scriptura, are less likely to obsess over the biblical canon than Protestants are.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair observation.

It tends to become a polemical football for both sides, the criticism that books were somehow ‘added’ demands a response. If that criticism were not coming up so often, Catholics and Orthodox would not be so interested in the subject. Orthodox even less so than the Roman Catholics, which is why there is variation within the Orthodox Canon.

Nobody loses any sleep over it. 🙂
 
Hesychios said:
That’s a fair observation.

It tends to become a polemical football for both sides, the criticism that books were somehow ‘added’ demands a response. If that criticism were not coming up so often, Catholics and Orthodox would not be so interested in the subject. Orthodox even less so than the Roman Catholics, which is why there is variation within the Orthodox Canon.

Nobody loses any sleep over it. 🙂
Click to expand...
i’m not obsessing, just curious about the history.

:sleep:
 
Chellow said:
Here goes some really good links that may explain everything, especially the ones from the ORTHODOX OUTLET for DOGMATIC ENQUIRIES which explains the whole difference for me satisfactorily. May I say the difference does not hinder our separation.

oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/ag_grafi.htm
oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/kanonas0.htm
oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/biblia.grafis1.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Biblical_canons
mb-soft.com/believe/txc/septuagi.htm
Click to expand...
thank you chellow, i have much to read. 👍
 
Chellow said:
So, jen fla you have any Conclusion?
Click to expand...
hi chellow. no, one article just leads me to more questions.

from Council of Carthage (A.D. 419)

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
Code: 
* Genesis.
* Exodus.
* Leviticus.
* Numbers.
* Deuteronomy.
* Joshua the Son of Nun.
* The Judges.
* Ruth.
* The Kings, iv. books.
* The Chronicles, ij. books.
* Job.
* The Psalter.
* The Five books of Solomon.
* The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
* Isaiah.
* Jeremiah.
* Ezechiel.
* Daniel.
* Tobit.
* Judith.
* Esther.
* Ezra, ij. books.
* Macchabees, ij. books.
      o The New Testament.
            + The Gospels, iv. books.
            + The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
            + The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
            + The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
            + The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
            + The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
            + The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
            + The Revelation of John, j. book.
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
i am assuming that “ij” means one and two, but i have never seen it like that.

and is this a limited list of canonical books? i believe the Church has other books that are considered inspired, but they are not for use during Mass.
 
According to what I read from the Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries their Bible contain the same books from the Council of Carthage as we do. I know they also may have some books they do not consider Canonical Scripture and may be an appendix, somewhat like some of the Protestants add deuterocanonical books as Apocrypha. I may be wrong but that’s what I got from my reading.

Interesting links below.

davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/otbooks.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible
 
Chellow said:
According to what I read from the Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries their Bible contain the same books from the Council of Carthage as we do. I know they also may have some books they do not consider Canonical Scripture and may be an appendix, somewhat like some of the Protestants add deuterocanonical books as Apocrypha. I may be wrong but that’s what I got from my reading.

Interesting links below.

davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/otbooks.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible
Click to expand...
i think i agree with your above post. it does seem that way, but of course i have only scratched the surface.

i looked around that site and i admit part of my brain shut down after reading the word papist too many times. :rolleyes: and then i didn’t see machabees mentioned once on the page for carthage which made me wonder about the credibility of that site.

oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/kanonas2.htm

but going from this chart (if it is correct), i see it shows the orthodox Church has 3 machabees as belonging to the canon, but not being validated irrevocably like 1 and 2 are.

oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/biblia.grafis1.htm

sooooooo if that is correct, then i guess it really is no big deal and just demonstrates that we agree as to how they have been classified.

however on the other hand we see that the Catholic Church clearly stated in the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397)

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.

so why do i find many Orthodox sites claiming that we dropped 3 maccabees?

*The Roman Catholic edition omits two books from the Old Testament. The Council of Trent, in the third session (1546), excludes Ist Esdras and the 3rd Maccabees that was confirmed by the Vatican Council of 1870. The preservation of all the Holy Books of the Holy Bible expresses the vigilance of the Orthodox Church in guarding and preserving the Bible and its truth throughout the ages unadulterated
*
(Source: What Is The Holy Bible? by Rev. George C. Papademetriou, Ph.D., Director of the Library and Instructor of Systematic Theology, Hellenic College/Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology., Brookline, Massachusetts., 1986., pp.3-4).

this thread is interesting (albeit short) and deals with the exact same issue:

catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21106

well i don’t know. the orthodox Churches are family and i certainly don’t want to start a squabble, but at the same time i would like to understand it better.
 
You’ll find that some Orthodox sites make a lot of false claims against the Catholic Church. They tend to misunderstand Catholic teaching. Like Bishop Sheen said (my paraphrase) “If I was looking for the Church of Christ, I would look for the Church that was misunderstood, just as Jesus was misunderstood.”

The best way to find out the truth is independant research, i.e., find out which books were included in the Christian Bible. This may take a lot of time and effort, but it’ll be well worth it.
 
the orthodox Churches are family and i certainly don’t want to start a squabble, but at the same time i would like to understand it better.
Click to expand...
We find the Orthodox are suffering the sin of nationalism as the Ecumenical Patriarch has stated. You can find articles here and their where they fight among them self due to the nationalization of their Churches.

Due to the lack of charity of some Catholic faithful and their church nationalism, they find it hard to be charitable in return to us.

google.com/search?q=sin+of+nationalism+%22Ecumenical+Patriarch%22&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS309US309&start=0&sa=N
 
Chellow said:
We find the Orthodox are suffering the sin of nationalism as the Ecumenical Patriarch has stated. You can find articles here and their where they fight among them self due to the nationalization of their Churches.

Due to the lack of charity of some Catholic faithful and their church nationalism, they find it hard to be charitable in return to us.

google.com/search?q=sin+of+nationalism+%22Ecumenical+Patriarch%22&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS309US309&start=0&sa=N
Click to expand...
Oh are we? Let’s not bring up some of the sins the Roman Catholic Church is suffering from… suffice to say they’re a lot worse than “nationalism”. :rolleyes:
 
Chellow said:
We find the Orthodox are suffering the sin of nationalism as the Ecumenical Patriarch has stated. You can find articles here and their where they fight among them self due to the nationalization of their Churches.

Due to the lack of charity of some Catholic faithful and their church nationalism, they find it hard to be charitable in return to us
Click to expand...
I seem to recall that in America you often had Polish parishes and Irish parishes within a short distance from each other. The Irish Catholics never went to the Polish church and the Polish Catholics never went to the Irish church. Catholics are not immune to nationalism.

John
 
prodromos said:
I seem to recall that in America you often had Polish parishes and Irish parishes within a short distance from each other. The Irish Catholics never went to the Polish church and the Polish Catholics never went to the Irish church. Catholics are not immune to nationalism.

John
Click to expand...
The city I live in is still that way. There’s the Irish Church, the Polish Church, the Italian Church, and everyone sticks to their respective Church buildings. I grew up in the Irish one, by the way. 😉 I’ve never even seen the inside of the Italian one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top